alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: "Joe Ruocco" <JoeR@ICMINC.com> 

To: <sarah.holman@erg.com> 

Date: 10/6/2006 10:54:04 AM 

Subject: capacity of Bio-Methanators 

Sarah, 

Anaerobic systems are rated in terms of COD total loading capacity- that 

is the number of pounds per day of COD fed to the reactor per day is how 

we design and discuss all anaerobic systems, including of course high 

rate Bio-Methanators such as ours. 

Yes, plant capacity dictates the amount of evaporator condensate 

produced along with total COD loading. In a typical 50 MMGPY plant flows 

tend to be 80 to 140 gpm. In a 100 MMGPY plant they tend to be 200 to 

275 gpm. Loading ranges from 2000 PPD COD to 16,000 PPD depending on 

size of the plant and the design- some designs generate more COD than 

others. 

I hope this helps. 

Joe
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 11
                              EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months          Nine Months
                                                       Ended                 Ended
                                                September 30, 1997    September 30, 1997
                                                ------------------    ------------------

<S>                                             <C>                   <C>       
Net income                                          $   73,323            $  200,446
                                                    ==========            ==========



Average shares outstanding                             559,328               559,328

Dilutive average shares outstanding under
         warrants and options                          216,191               216,191

Exercise price                                      $    10.00            $    10.00

Assumed proceeds on exercise                        $2,161,910            $2,161,910

Average market value                                $    12.50            $    12.48

Less: Treasury stock purchased with assumed
      proceeds from exercise of warrants and
      options                                          172,953               173,230

Adjusted average shares-Primary                        602,566               602,289

Primary earnings per share                          $      .12            $      .33
                                                    ==========            ==========



Average shares outstanding                             559,328               559,328

Dilutive average shares outstanding under
         warrants and options                          216,191               216,191

Exercise price                                      $    10.00            $    10.00

Assumed proceeds on exercise                        $2,161,910            $2,161,910

Ending market value                                 $    12.50            $    12.50

Less: Treasury stock purchased with assumed
      proceeds from exercise of warrants and
      options                                          172,953               172,953

Adjusted average shares-Fully diluted                  602,566               602,566

Fully diluted earnings per share                    $      .12            $      .33
                                                    ==========            ==========
</TABLE>



         The stock of the Company is not traded on any public exchange. The
average and ending market values are derived from trades known to management.
Private sales may occur where management of the Company is unaware of the sales
price.
#### Thomas Edward MORSE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12587.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 2, 1958.

*708J. L. Pazoureck, El Reno, for plaintiff in error.

John Whelan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

The defendant, Thomas Edward Morse, Jr., was charged by information in the District Court of Canadian County with the crime of Burglary in the second degree. He entered a plea of guilty and the trial judge sentenced defendant to serve a term of 4 years in the state penitentiary.

Defendant lodged his appeal in this court on February 19, 1958. No brief was filed within the time prescribed by the rules of this court, rule 6, 22 O.S.A. c. 18, Appendix; no extension of time requested. This cause was set for oral argument on May 14, 1958. No appearances were made on behalf of the defendant. The record in this case, however, has been thoroughly examined and no material error is thereby reflected.

This court has consistently held to the rule as expressed in Hulsey v. State, 82 Okl. Cr. 332, 169 P.2d 771:

> “Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed, nor argument presented, this court will examine the evidence and ascertain if it supports the verdict, and will make an examination of the information, instructions excepted to, and the judgment, and if no material error is apparent, the judgment will be affirmed.” Dodge v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 100, 144 P.2d 124; Epps v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 460, 104 P.2d 262; Hiett v. State, 75 Okl.Cr. 190, 129 P.2d 866.

This court has gone further as to say in Barefield v. State, 26 Okl.Cr. 274, 223 P. 408:

> “The time for filing a brief supporting the appeal has passed, and, no briefs having been filed, it may be assumed that the appeal has been abandoned. The cause has been regularly submitted on the record, which has been examined, disclosing no error.”

In view of previous decisions of this court the case is hereby affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
H. R. 4285 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 Bridgeton 

Pike in Mullica Hill, New Jersey, as the ‘‘James C. ‘Billy’ Johnson Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JAMES C. ‘‘BILLY’’ JOHNSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 123 Bridgeton Pike in Mullica Hill, New Jersey, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James C. ‘Billy’ Johnson 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘James C. ‘Billy’ Johnson Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00511

- CV

Richard L. PEREZ

, Appellant

v.

CITIBANK, N.A.

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV00521

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE

VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED December 28, 2022.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0169 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. ISAIAH JAMES PEHRINGER,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 3 0 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2024

08/26/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0169
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ALEXANDER S. ORENSHT EYN, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINE SS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 1082

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:02

- cv

- 05074

- JFK

RLE, Senior Judge John F. Keenan.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Alexande r S. Orenshteyn moves without opposition for a 90

- day extension of time, until April 16, 2014, to file his principal brief.

Upon consideration thereof, Case: 14-1082 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2014ORENSHTEYN v. IBM 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The motion is granted.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’To ole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s27 Case: 14-1082 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE IS RESTATED FROM JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         892,165
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,692
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,952,156
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    124,500
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,250,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,248,319
<LOANS>                                     31,276,305
<ALLOWANCE>                                    348,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,070,848
<DEPOSITS>                                  35,643,202
<SHORT-TERM>                                   450,939
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            126,793
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,793,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              40,070,848
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,408,710
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               39,857
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               106,413
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,554,980
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             769,101
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             780,810
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          774,170
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   41,466
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                659,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,123
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     127,123
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   127,123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.38
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    95,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                289,639
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               332,253
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   36,382
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,663
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              348,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        348,000
        

</TABLE>
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 1428 LT Case No. 2021

- 302984

- CFDB

_____________________________
B RANDO N M ILES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Leah R. Case , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender
, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General
, Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

Oct ober 31, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L AMBERT , H ARRIS , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
<page>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Seamless Wi-Fi, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Albert Reda, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Albert Reda
----------------
Albert Reda,
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
July 14, 2009
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. POE of Texas:
       H.R. 6199.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JAMES M. ANDERSON, a/k/a Hollywood, Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 07-7378) Submitted: April 9, 2008 Decided: May 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James M. Anderson pled guilty to distributing a quantity of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and was sentenced to a term of 108 months imprisonment. Anderson appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by seeking to impose a “reasonable” sentence rather than a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and failed to consider adequately the effect of the 100:1 sentencing ratio for cocaine and crack offenses in his case. He also claimed that his sentence was greater than necessary to further the purposes of § 3553(a)(2). We affirmed his sentence; however, the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Kimbrough v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). See United States v. Anderson , 241 F. App’x 912 (4th Cir. 2007), vacated , 128 S. Ct. 913 (2008). In Kimbrough , the Supreme Court held that “it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” Kimbrough , 128 S. Ct. at 575. Kimbroughhas thus abrogated United States v. Eura , 440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that sentencing court may not vary from guideline range solely because of 100:1 ratio for crack/cocaine* On remand, Anderson will be resentenced under the revised guidelines for crack offenses that took effect on November 1, 2007. - 3 - offenses), vacated , 128 S. Ct. 853 (2008). The district court did not have the benefit of Kimbrough when it determined Anderson’s sentence. To give the district court the opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Kimbrough , we conclude that resentencing is necessary. We therefore vacate the sentence imposed by the district court and remand for resentencing. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
EXHIBIT 21.1

                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                            GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.
                           (a Delaware corporation)


                                Jurisdiction of   Names Under Which
  Subsidiary                    Incorporation     Company Does Business
  ----------                    ---------------   ---------------------
  Giant Industries
    Arizona, Inc.               Arizona           Giant Refining Company
                                                  Ciniza Pipe Line Company
                                                  Giant Transportation
                                                  Giant Service Stations
                                                  Giant Travel Center
                                                  TransWest Tank Lines
    - Giant Four Corners,
        Inc.*                   Arizona
    - Giant Mid-Continent,
        Inc.*                   Arizona
    - Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*   Arizona           Phoenix Fuel Company
                                                  Mesa Fuel Company
                                                  Tucson Fuel Company
                                                  Firebird Fuel Company
                                                  PFC Lubricants Company
    - DeGuelle Oil Company*     Colorado
    - Ciniza Production
        Company*                New Mexico
    - Giant Stop-N-Go of
        New Mexico, Inc.*       New Mexico
    - San Juan Refining
        Company*                New Mexico
    - Giant Pipeline Company*   New Mexico

  Giant Exploration &
    Production Company          Texas

  _______________

  *A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements listed below of Gehl Company of our report dated
February 10, 1997 appearing in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders which 
is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the 
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.

        1.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-38392)

        2.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-39150)

        3.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-02195)

        4.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-04017)

        5.  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-9173)



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
February 27, 1997
# C_2021182EN.01001502.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial v Skatteverket

(Case C-812/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable person - Concept - Article 11 - VAT group - Principal establishment and branch of a company situated in two different Member States - Principal establishment forming part of a VAT group to which the branch does not belong - Principal establishment providing services to the branch and imputing to it the costs of those services)

(2021/C 182/21)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) and Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, for value added tax (VAT) purposes, the principal establishment of a company, situated in a Member State and forming part of a VAT group formed on the basis of Article 11, and the branch of that company, established in another Member State, must be regarded as separate taxable persons where that principal establishment provides that branch with services and imputes the costs thereof to the branch.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10 K
FOR PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                       745
<INVENTORY>                                      7,844
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,672
<PP&E>                                          55,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,168
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,871
<SALES>                                         20,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,358
<CGS>                                           14,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                       748
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (194)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>